APHC010062972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 952/2026 Between: 1. BOBBA TEJA SAI,, S/O. JAMAKI RAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.1-93, POST OFFICE STREET, TADITHOTA,KALDHARI VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 2. S BALU, S/O. SANKAR NAQIK, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,R/O. VADARELLI, VIDYAARNIYAPURAM, BENGALURU,KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 2 on bail pending disposal of Crime No.05/2026 of Visakhapatnam Railway P.S., Visakhapatnam District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GOLLAPALLI MAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 952/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 & 2, seeking regular bail, in Crime No.05/2026 of Visakhapatnam Railway P.S., Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 07.01.2026, on receipt of credible information, the SI of Visakhapatnam Railway P.S., rushed to North End of Platform No.1 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station, caught the accused while they were in conscious possession of 5.5. Kgs of Ganja. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediator’s report and the police have arrested the accused on the spot. 3. Heard Sri Gollapalli Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners were arrested on 07.01.2026, since then, they have been in judicial custody. The Petitioners were falsely implicated in the present crime. He would further submit that the contraband seized in this case is 5.5 Kgs, which is a non- 4 commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the Petitioners finally prays to grant bail to the Petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the investigation is not completed. Inventory is also not completed. The Statutory period is not over. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition in the light of the bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Rajesh1 at Paragraph Nos.8, 19, 20 and 21 held as under: 8. To curb the spread of dangerous drugs, Parliament has mandated that an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be granted bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and will not commit offences while on bail. The High Court failed to justify ignoring these mandatory conditions when releasing the accused. Instead of considering the grave socio-economic and health consequences of illegal drug trafficking, the court ought to have enforced the law in the spirit intended by Parliament. 19. Section 37 imposes additional, overriding restrictions on the grant of bail, beyond those under Section 439 CrPC, through its non obstante clause. It prohibits bail unless two mandatory conditions are met: the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. If either condition is not fulfilled, the bar against granting bail applies. 20.The term “reasonable grounds” requires more than mere prima facie satisfaction; it demands substantial, probable causes showing the accused is not guilty. Such belief must arise from facts and circumstances sufficient to justify that conclusion. In the present case, the High Court overlooked the strict object of Section 37, and its liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act was unwarranted. 21.The learned Single Judge failed to record the mandatory finding required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a sine qua non for granting bail in such cases. 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 5 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners do not deserve to be released on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.02.2026. UPS 6 160 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 952/2026 Dt.16.02.2026 UPS